Insurance Claims

[ QUOTE ]
They're not interested in anything except making as much money as possible from our gambling... but at the end of the day, they are in business for their benefit

[/ QUOTE ]
I was referring to the policy holders who make accidental damage claims on household insurance. "Dropped cigarette on settee when I nodded off", "dropped cigarette on carpet", "knocked over glass of wine", the claims file went on and one like this.
 
Are you suggesting that the additional money taken for "Accidental Damage" is used just to fund the Accidental Damage Claims?
 
[ QUOTE ]
I'm very surprised to read that one of us is even contemplating claiming a replacement forestay

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm the one contemplating claiming for a replacement forestay - so here goes:

I'm insured with GJW (excess £250).
Standing rigging is covered, except if you race (we don't).
Boat was surveyed last year and standing rigging was pronounced OK, but to be replaced "in due course". Was agreed with GJW that it would be done 07/08 winter.

First estimate I got was in the 2K plus region - they wanted the boat lifted, mast stepped, etc... Wasn't even clear if the 2K included VAT.

To me 2K is a months wages and half my annual boating budget (mooring, insurance, antifoul, maintenance and the odd bits what need replacing anyway).
To me, 2K is not just a handful of loose change, it's a lot of money.

So, no - I'm not ashamed that I considered a claim.

I did however, get another firm quote. £450+VAT all-in. Boat remains afloat and mast remains up. Job done by the end of the week.
I won't be claiming, as £200 is just not worth the hassle.

In the past 8 years I have only ever submitted 1 claim - when the boat broke her mooring. Settled by GJW in 2 weeks.
Have had numerous small scrapes I never claimed for as I considered them part of boating. Even though I learned afterwards I could have claimed for them.



What surprised my about some reactions to my earlier post is the utter selfishness of some people. "What about our premium?".
Honestly, I do not lie awake at night worrying about your premium. I've got enough worries of my own.

Like I said, only ever claimed once - but my premium went up every regardless of the fact I had submitted a claim or not.

So, if our paths should ever cross, I will be submitting a claim because you hurt my feelings once.
 
[ QUOTE ]
So, if our paths should ever cross, I will be submitting a claim because you hurt my feelings once.

[/ QUOTE ]
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

What value are you putting on your feelings? and I assume you are therefore open to a counter claim! /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
 
Well, some interesting responses - mostly in line with what I'd imagine. I'd sum it up by suggesting that most would claim for accidental damage which justifies the loss of ncb, also taking into account the policy excess

I've never made a claim yet, but certainly would in the event of major damage to our boat or to third party

I'd never make a 'wear and tear' type claim, and had assumed that rigging fell into this category. I would claim if the rigging failure had dire consequences, eg loss of mast or sails

You say that standing rigging is covered, must check my policy. If so, no wonder the premiums are expensive!

But, twice now you've brought your personal finances into the issue as to why you are claiming. Not sure why - it's almost as though you are saying that insurance claims help to keep down the cost of your boating, which doesn't quite sound right.

Anyway, didn't mean to hurt your feelings - just found the concept of claiming for rigging a bit hard to get my simple head around

And, whoever suggested the boat has to come out of the water or mast down to replace a forestay wants crossing off your damage control committee pdq
 
I think all of us will have our standing rigging covered - its part of the vessel, gear, equipment and machinery. But my policy and I'm sure every other one in the world has a limitation that excludes wear, tear, gradual deterioration and breakdown. If there is a policy that includes wear and tear, I doubt I could afford it. That was behind my point in the origin thread that pointed out that there would have to have been 'an event' to show that it did not break by wear and tear or gradual deterioration. After all standing rigging is a service item - we all know it needs to be replaced at some time. The trouble is there doesn't appear to be a test that says that it will last for this period or that period.

I would be interested to know that if the forestay parted through age and then brought down the rig, would the replacement of the rig be covered? After all, it came down because a serviceable item failed, not because of accident.
 
Having thrown a rig over the side, I cant remember anyone in the crew being very interested in looking at every inch of it prior to consigning it to the safe custody of the sea bed. Therefore it was a failure that required a form from the insurer once safely back in port.
Now, the thing is, *if* we had managed to stop the mast from breaking in half and saved it, and had managed to safely stow all the bits on the boat and got them back to port, would we have had the eagle eye of the insurers surveying agent to deal with, and therefore the possibility of a refused claim?
So, is it morally correct to keep it or ditch it in the interests of *safety*?

Also, it still seems to me that this a price based call. Seems OK to replace a forestay mebbe, but if the whole blimmin thing goes over, due to the same wear and tear breakage of forestay, well, what would we do then? Not claim for any of it?

I suggest that would be highly unlikely.
 
The only reason I brought personal finances into this is the fact that several reactions said "Replacing a forestay is not that expensive".

At the time of my original post, the only figure I had to go on was 2K+.

I done begrudge anyone the good fortune to be able to take 2K+ on the chin; but in my world 2K+ is expensive.

All thing being relative and all...
 
If one lost the entire rig due to an item that had required to be replaced not being replaced, then I presume any associated damage would not be covered?
 
I think you're missing my point.

I quote from Full Circle's post above

[ QUOTE ]


Also, it still seems to me that this a price based call. Seems OK to replace a forestay mebbe, but if the whole blimmin thing goes over, due to the same wear and tear breakage of forestay, well, what would we do then? Not claim for any of it?

I suggest that would be highly unlikely.



[/ QUOTE ]
 
Well that's my question. I would really like to know the answer.

Guapa, in fairness to Big Nick, I think he's talking about claiming for a broken forestay not the rig going over the side.

If the rig went over the side would I claim? Yes I would. But would it be covered if it was because I hadn't replaced the forestay?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top